Appeal No. 98-2117 Page 5
Application No. 08/370,170
all that it teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art.
See, e.g., In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843, 847, 181 USPQ 94, 97 (CCPA
1974). Here, however, we do not believe that Fig. 4 of Redman
either teaches or fairly suggests flat, planar surfaces.
Patent drawings are not working drawings and the examiner's
position is predicated on a greatly enlarged section of a small
drawing that was obviously never intended to show the precise
detail of the surfaces on the end
portion the Redman's member 42 that the examiner has designated
as 9B. See In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449, 454, 136 USPQ 188, 1924
(CCPA 1963). Moreover, viewing the examiner's enlargement of
Redman's Fig. 4, we observe that, while the surface 9A appears
to be depicted as flat and planar with reasonable clarity,
surface 9B does not. In fact, the surface 9B appears to be
more rounded than flat and planar.
4The view that Redman never intended to show precise
detail of the surfaces on the end portion the member 42 is
apparent from the examiner's exhibit by a comparison of the
end portion 9B on the left side with the "mirror image" end
portion on the right side. That is, end portion on the right
side appears to be significantly more flat and planar than the
end portion 9B (which appears to be significantly rounded).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007